Desperate Dems trying to "Google-bomb" ABC's 9/11 movie (1 Viewer)

[Little-Acorn]

The party that has lived by the spin and the lie for so long, is now facing death by the spin. Who can blame them for trying so hard to change what people take away from this docu-drama? All they have is the manufactured impression of what they want people to think about their hero's 8-year administration - an impression that facts do not serve kindly. So they must pour on the propaganda in every way possible, to block out those irritating, inconvenient facts.

One way will be to pick out minor scenes where ABC admittedly made up dialogue to increase drama without substantially changing the theme of what happened. The desperate Dems will scream bloody murder over the dialogue, and hope that people will concentrate on that while forgetting about the bulk of the movie they can't refute.

And they'll even try to manipulate search engines to pretend more attention should be paid to their own propaganda than to the movie itself.

If they had tried as hard to get bin Laden as they are trying now to cover up their failures, 9/11 might never have happened at all. But as it is, they're going to wear out the barrel now, scraping the bottom so long and hard.

---------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212847,00.html

Dropping a "Google Bomb"

Thursday, September 07, 2006
By Brit Hume

Democratic Web loggers are so upset by that ABC 9/11 movie that they've planned an Internet attack — known as a Google Bomb — to make sure their view of the film dominates the Web.

Activists on Democratic-Underground.com have urged every Democratic blogger to post identical entries after the movie airs, all featuring the film's title, so that any Internet search for the movie will turn up a liberal blog highlighting what they say are multiple inaccuracies in the film.

If the plan works, bloggers say they'll be prepared to utilize the technique "at every turn" between now and November.

 

[Captain America]

All they have is the manufactured impression of what they want people to think about their hero's 8-year administration - an impression that facts do not serve kindly. So they must pour on the propaganda in every way possible, to block out those irritating, inconvenient facts.

Absolutely. Clinton's 8 years of peace and economic boom should not go unpunished. :roll:

 

[niftydrifty]

...spin ... lie ... spin...them ...they ...they ...they... admittedly made up dialogue... desperate Dems ... they ...they'll ... they ... they ... they're ...

LOL! Leave it to Brit Hume to get at the heart of the matter! :roll:

The movie is protrayed as some kind of documentary, but has fictionalized scenes that the network admits are inaccurate. So what does Brit do? He talks about the Liberal web's reaction to it, and their insidious plans.

And what does little acorn do? LA talks alot about inconvenient facts, and about the "bulk of the movie," without supplying any said facts.

little acorn hopes that people will focus on little acorn's own statements about the "they," the "them," and the "Dems," rather than notice that no specific facts are ever mentioned.

It's a rather easy script to follow, and little acorn delivers it beautifully. Great job.

 

[Little-Acorn]

One way will be to pick out minor scenes where ABC admittedly made up dialogue to increase drama without substantially changing the theme of what happened. The desperate Dems will scream bloody murder over the dialogue, and hope that people will concentrate on that while forgetting about the bulk of the movie they can't refute.

And they'll even try to manipulate search engines to pretend more attention should be paid to their own propaganda than to the movie itself.

If they had tried as hard to get bin Laden as they are trying now to cover up their failures, 9/11 might never have happened at all. But as it is, they're going to wear out the barrel now, scraping the bottom so long and hard.

Another common tactic is to try to chage the subject completely, to other areas where they can try to give Clinton credit for things he didn't cause, such as the economy that boomed almost continuously from the time of Reagan's tax cuts of the 1980s till the present, faltering only when Democrats forced GHW Bush 41 to break his promise and sign new taxes, resulting in a brief economic downturn. Plus the laughable tactic of describing the 1990s as an era of "peace", while Islamic terrorists attacked us again and again with progressively stronger methods while the Clinton adminstration did nothing about it, letting them grown into the organization that destroyed the WTC on Sept. 11, 2001.

Either that, or the even-more-common tactic of changing the subject yet again, to personal smears and attacking the messenger when they can't deal with the message.

Again, who can blame the Democrats for their constant diversions, when the facts serve them so poorly?

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

 

[Gill]

The movie is protrayed as some kind of documentary, but has fictionalized scenes that the network admits are inaccurate. So what does Brit do? He talks about the Liberal web's reaction to it, and their insidious plans.

And what does little acorn do? LA talks alot about inconvenient facts, and about the "bulk of the movie," without supplying any said facts.

There are several other threads that go into the content of the movie. This thread is about the left's desparate attempt to censor it.

 

[RightinNYC]

The movie is protrayed as some kind of documentary, but has fictionalized scenes that the network admits are inaccurate.

No it's not. The producers clearly stated that its partially dramatized, and they will even be airing a statement before the show explaining that. Nice try though.

 

[Harshaw]

Absolutely. Clinton's 8 years of peace and economic boom should not go unpunished. :roll:

I still get a kick out of Clintonites conveniently forgetting that Clinton prosecuted an unprovoked war on Yugoslavia over internal Yugoslav matters.